Sunday, February 12, 2006

What The Democrats Want

“If America shows weakness and uncertainty, the world will drift toward tragedy. That will not happen on my watch.” ~ George W. Bush

This is the last of a three part series of vignettes depicting what the NSA is doing, what the Democrats claim they are doing, and what the Democrats seemingly want the NSA to do. If you haven't read the first two vignettes, they are the two posts immediately preceding today's.

Scenario 3. What the Democrats seemingly want the NSA to do.

Same scene. Same three men.

(An alarm sounds.)

Tom: Oh there goes one now, Harry. Here’s your first chance to help protect our country. Go ahead and flip that switch there, and listen in.

(After a few seconds, Harry looks up at Tom and Dick, with a look of alarm on his face.)

Harry: Oh wow! They are talking about setting a bomb off at the White house! What do I do?

Dick: Now, we go to the FISA Court and get the warrant.

(Tom tears off a strip of continuous feed computer paper from the printer and sprints out of the room as Dick picks up the nearest phone.)

Dick (speaking into phone): Ben, We’ve got a priority code 1 here….Yes Sir….10-4. (then turning to Harry) See? That’s how it’s done.

Harry: What now?

Dick: We wait.

Harry: For how long?

Dick: As long as it takes to get the warrant and act on it. Might as well get comfortable. This will take a while.

Harry: But what about the terrorists on the phone?

Dick: Hopefully we will get the necessary paperwork to stop it before it happens. If not….

Harry (finishing Dicks thought for him): Bye-bye to the Whitehouse.

Dick: (sigh) Yup.

(72 hours later. Dick and Harry are sitting in chairs, their chairs propped up with their backs against the wall. Tom enters, with a sheaf of papers in his hand. Dick and Harry stand up)

Tom (dropping the papers on the desk) Well, here’s the warrant.

Harry: Great! Now we can get those terrorists!

Tom: No. It’s too late now. There’s nothing left of the White house now but a crater. The President and half the legislators are dead.

Dick (shaking head, in resignation): I hope the Democrats are happy, now. They got what they wanted.

End.

24 comments:

Mary said...

I don't think the Dems want there to be another catastrophic terrorist attack that would rival the death and damage of 9/11. I'm certain they don't.

The problem is we are at war and the Dems apparently didn't get the memo.

They distort and misrepresent the counterterrrorism programs that are in place, hoping to score political points. Putting politics ahead of the good of the nation is inexcusable.

The Dems can't be trusted with national security.

The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

Mark this has been a excellent series of articles. The Demcorats care for nothing except the attempt to destroy the President and gaining power back in Washington.. If that means destroying the nation in the process then so be it. This is exactly why they must NEVER be the majority or in the Whie House again!

Ken

Timothy said...

Mark,
Give it time... I'm praying for you. Blessings

Jim said...

Your ignorance is astonishing. There is nothing in the current law that would prevent the NSA or anyone else from acting immediately to the crisis in your scenario or any other. To suggest otherwise is is either the height of lunacy or a blatant lie.

The government can legally act immediately against any danger. If you do not know that by now then your only source of information must be Rush or Sean. In your scenario, the government could act immediately. They would need to get court approval after the fact witin 72 hours. Seems to me there is little doubt that they would be able to convince a court that the action was warranted given the information you say they would have (constituting a "clear and present danger") and the fact that they actually thwarted the terrorist action.

Get real and stop making s**t up!

Mark said...

I could have rejected the last comment, but I publish comments like this to allow the Libs to prove how mean spirited they really are. Thanks for your comment, Jim.

Yes, the scenario is made up. It is exxagerated. I don't know the procedure.

It is supposed to be secret. Of Course, in the Democrats world, there would be no secrets, so this scenario would never take place. The terrorists would know they are being listened to, so they would find alternative methods to contact each other.

Oh wait. They already know know they're being listened to. Thanks to the New York Times, and whoever the weasels were who leaked the info to them. My bad.

Jim said...

What you are either not getting or just refuse to admit, is there is nobody complaining about the techniques the NSA is using nor the peolple or reasons they are targeting.

Read carefully: It is the rule of law. (Remember 1998?). Do whatever is necessary to protect citizens. Do it legally, and nobody objects. Law doesn't work for you? Don't break it. Get it changed. (And don't claim that it will divulge too much information getting it changed. The Congress and the executive have been working together for over 200 years creating and executing the national security laws of this nation.)

People, if you listen to Gonzales and Cheney and Bush, you really will understand what's going on here. The congress has offered to change the law to accomodate the needs of the NSA. The administration refused. Why?

Because they want to make the point that the Executive Branch is the primary, most important, most powerful branch of the government and they don't give a flying f**k about the law, the people, the FISA court or how anybody besides John Yoo or Albert Gonzales interpret the Constitution for Bush and Cheney.

Mark said...

"nobody complaining about the techniques the NSA is using nor the peolple or reasons they are targeting".

Nobody? The Democrats are insisting that we are conducting "Domestic Surveillance"

That isn't complaining about the technique or reasons? What is it then?

Jim said...

No, they are not complaining about that. They are complaining that it is being done OUTSIDE the law when it can easily be done WITHIN the law, or the law can be changed.

The administration displays its arrogance by sidestepping the law or refusing to work with Congress to change the law because it believes it's power is supreme. Listen to Gonzales: "We'll listen to your ideas." What about "we'll obey your laws and the Constitution"?

I think it is "mean spirited" to continuously accuse the Democrats of things that are patently false and that any reasonably informed person would know are false.

rusty shakelford said...

You could not be more right mark. The thing that makes the NSA wiretaps legal is that we are at war. Imagine if there was an army that attacked and set up a post on American soil, much like we have in Iraq or Afghanistan. In the democrats opinion if that army tried to communicate outside their post it would be illegal for us to intercept them without a judge's permission. Also we have to point out that gathering intelligence is the presidents job, not some judge. Democrats want to take the ability to wage an effective war away from the president and give it to the judicial branch.

rusty shakelford said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jim said...

So Rusty, anything the president does while the country is "at war" is legal, is that it? He answers to nobody as long as we are at war?

What "war" are we talking about here exactly? The war in Iraq is over, the enemy is defeated, its leader in jail.

The "war on terror" is also known as "the struggle against Islamic extremism." There is no declaration of war by congress. There is no defined enemy. There is no state to conquer. There is no definition of victory.

(Yes, there is a struggle against terrorists. This is a struggle that MUST be fought intelligently AND COMPETENTLY. Oh and LEGALLY)

What the Bush/Cheney administration has crafted here is a perpetual war during which you are granting a demonstrably incompetent administration any power they choose to excercise for as long as they choose to use it.

Suppose the president declares that it would NOT be in the best interest of national security to allow a Democratic administration in 2009 so he suspends the elections to prevent that from happening and therefore prevent an attack on US soil. Why couldn't he do that?

Or is that OK with you?

Jim said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Erudite Redneck said...

If we had effective waging of war going on, that might be a valid point, RS. Alas, not.

old soldier said...

Jim, what the Dem's refuse to acknowledge is that the president was given the "lawful" authorization to conduct the intelligence gathering necessary to prosecute an engagement of "force" against our enemy; it is called the AUFA. It is the Democratic caucus of the Congress that keeps trying to usurp executive authority. Thank God they are not succeeding.

Dan Trabue said...

I'll have to agree with Jim that,

1. What folk are complaining about is that laws are being broken by this administration. If you don't like the laws, change them, don't break them. If you break them, you have to accept the punishment. And,

2. Wires can be tapped immediately. The law provides for getting a warrant after the fact, but it has to be within a time limit (within a day, I think).

This is about the illegality of it all.

Erudite Redneck said...

Jim, you must be new around here.

Jim said...

e-rud (may I call you that?). Yes I am.

Old Soldier: Funny but the people who passed the AUMF (I presume that is what you really mean), Congress that is, don't think they gave the president that authorization. And the Congressional Research Service doesn't seem to think so either.

Also OS, the Democratic caucus can't usurp diddly. In case you hadn't noticed, they are the minority, which is why there is no accountability for anything this incompetent, secretive, and dishonest adminstration does.

Mark said...

Jim, This administration is incompetent, eh?

You yourself said, "The war in Iraq is over, the enemy is defeated, its leader in jail".

So, in your world, the winning of a war qualifies as incompetent?

Well, I guess, considering the fact that the Democrats want us to cut and run in Iraq, and prove to the terrorists that America is indeed a paper tiger as bin Laden said, one could consider winning the war incompetent.

I wonder how many other innocent American citizens woud be dead today if the Democrats were in the majority.

Oh, and by the way, the term "Domestic Surveillance" indicates the Democrats are complaining about the techniques. they know it isn't domestic, yet they still call it that.

Mark said...

On another note, Is anyone here aware of any other blogger who ever did a three part series of one act plays to illustrate a point? I think I have made history here. ;)

Jim said...

Our military was stunning in its defeat of the Iraqi military. The military is quite competent, and nobody disputes that. I would not characterize the military as part of the "administration."

The incompetence in not planning for post-invasion Iraq, the incompetence of FEMA/Homeland Security, the incompetence of the National Security Advisor, I'll stand by that.

I've never heard of a Democrat advocating "cut and run." That is a term made up by the Rove machine to be parroted by you and the Bush minions. There are various plans proposed by Democrats and military veterans which call for reduction in US troop numbers (just like the administration) and there are those who suggest moving the US troops outside of Iraq, ready for immediate deployment. All of these are valid plans. None is "cut and run".

There is nothing in the term "Domestic surveillance" that suggests a complaint against techniques and targets. The administration has said that the program involves people residing within the United States. That I believe would be "domestic."

I repeat. I repeat. I repeat. There is no Democrat complaining about the techniques and targets of this program. They just want someone to provide a court with the who and the why and have it done in a legal and Constitutional manner.

You expect people to accept "trust us" from the most secretive administration in the history of the United States?

Goat said...

Well, from what I have read from more than a few constitutional scholars that have looked at the legality seem to agree, that what the NSA is doing and what Pres. Bush has authorized is perfectly legal.
Mark, your satire was quite apropo and well done, grin.

Jim said...

And I have read from as many constitutional scholars that it is not. On what basis do "your" scholars deem that bypassing existing laws is constitutional?

Goat said...

Simple, they have not been shown to be breaking any existing law. May I remind you it is not against the law to use internet search engines like google and technorati to search public domain such as blogs and chatrooms. Even the ACLU has not been able to find one case of abuse, with many fraudulent staged attempts.

Jim said...

Goat, who's talking about that? I believe the topic is monitoring telephone and electronic "communications" without court oversight.